ArticleJournal of dental sciences2025
Marginal bone level of dental implants using computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing customized abutment and prefabricated abutment-A five-year follow-up.
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/purpose: Computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) allows for the customization of implant abutments as an alternative to prefabricated options. The purpose of this study was to compare the marginal bone levels of dental implants using CAD/CAM customized abutments (CA) versus prefabricated abutments (PA) over a five-year follow-up period. Materials and methods: Implants were divided into two groups based on abutment type: CA and PA. Marginal bone level (MBL), changes in MBL and bone-to-implant contact ratio (BIC), were assessed from baseline to 5 years post-prosthetics loading. Additionally, the study analyzed based on dental arches, opposing structure types, and the distance from implant platform to the cementoenamel junction of adjacent teeth (CEJ-PL). Results: Overall, MBL increased significantly for all implants from baseline to 5 years. The CA group in the mandible showed significantly higher MBL compared to the PA group (0.98 ± 0.71 mm vs. 0.54 ± 0.55 mm). Implants opposed by fixed restorations (FRs) experienced significantly more MBL compared to those opposed by natural teeth (NT) after 5 years. Implants placed at a depth greater than 3 mm (CEJ-PL > 3 mm) exhibited significantly greater changes in MBL on the distal side after 5 years compared to those placed at a shallower depth (CEJ-PL ≤ 3 mm). Conclusion: The MBL and changes in MBL showed similar trend between the CA and PA groups in the five-year follow-up. The CA group exhibited significantly more bone remodeling after one year, particularly for implants opposing FRs and those with a CEJ-PL distance exceeding 3 mm.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.